Purpose: The production of science in each country reflects its development, and the sustainable progress of each nation is contingent upon its specific capabilities. The advancement of human, financial, economic, social, cultural, and political resources is a cornerstone of sustainable development in any country. Higher education plays a crucial role in cultivating specialized human resources required by society, equipping them with the necessary skills for their respective roles. Evaluation is a key factor that can shift education from a static state to a dynamic trajectory. Higher education and the contributions of professors are pivotal in the progress of any country. The evaluation of professors in the field of painting holds particular significance due to the valuable and substantial outputs they generate, many of which cannot be adequately identified and assessed using the standard criteria for faculty promotion. This study aims to explore the evaluation criteria and research productivity of faculty members specializing in painting at the Public and Islamic Azad universities in Tehran, as well as their perspectives on evaluation criteria.
 
Methodology: The current research is of an applied nature, specifically a descriptive survey for data collection. The scientometric approach was utilized in this research. The statistical population consisted of 30 individuals out of 61 painting professors from Public and Islamic Azad universities in Tehran between 2018 and 2021. The selection criteria included having at least an assistant professor degree, three years of teaching experience, and the willingness of participants to take part in the research. Among these 30 individuals, 23 participated, with 4 engaging in specialized interviews and 19 responding to a questionnaire. The research instrument was a researcher-developed questionnaire comprising 56 questions. 26 questions were directly derived from the regulations for faculty members' promotion in universities and higher education institutions under the Ministry of Science's supervision (Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, 2016) (explicit outputs), while 30 questions were related to significant outputs in the field of painting, either implicitly mentioned in the regulations or identified through qualitative interviews with painting experts (semi-obvious outputs). The questionnaire's content validity was confirmed by four faculty members, and its reliability, assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, was 0.765. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software.
Findings: The findings revealed that among the various types of research outputs, internal scientific research articles, promotional scientific articles, and conference articles each received the highest score of 91.3 percent. Conversely, works related to book criticism had a frequency of 17.4 percent. Foreign articles indexed in the Web of Science, participation in international research projects, and guiding bachelor's theses were the least common types of research works among professors, each scoring 21.7 percent. The results indicated that while many professors included publications in their resumes, most lacked valid foreign articles indexed in WOS and Scopus. For those who did have such articles, the average number was only about two, which is notably low for professors of this scientific caliber.
 
Among the semi-obvious outputs, showcasing works in individual internal exhibitions, displaying works in group internal exhibitions, creating artwork, and mastering a foreign language all have a 100 percent frequency. The history of membership in ethics committees in research has a 13 percent frequency. Exhibiting works in individual foreign exhibitions has a 13 percent frequency while being the editor or manager of magazines in the field of visual arts has a 14.7 percent frequency. These two have the lowest frequency among the semi-obvious outputs. According to painting professors, guides for specialized doctorate theses, showcasing works in individual foreign exhibitions, participating in international research projects, and teaching workshops are considered the most important for the promotion of professors in this field. On the other hand, book reviews, internal conference papers, thesis counseling for Bachelor's degrees, history of membership in ethics committees in research, book editing and compilation, and guidance of bachelor's theses are considered the least important.
 
According to professors, there was no significant difference between obvious and semi-obvious outputs. Ignoring artworks and exhibitions as the outputs of this field, many professors, not familiar with the latest research methods in art, avoid international trips and conferences due to financial problems and the lack of motivation among professors and officials to upgrade their scientific rank. The arrangement was the most important obstacle to the fair promotion of painting professors.
Conclusion: In general, based on the results obtained from the present research, it can be concluded that the current regulations for the promotion of professors are inadequate in fairly evaluating art professors. Structural reforms and practical measures are needed to enhance the evaluation of professors in this field.
According to the research findings, it is recommended to incorporate items endorsed by selected professors into the promotion regulations to address the lack of availability or inadequate presentation of certain outputs. Additionally, in response to concerns raised by professors regarding methodological issues in painting research, it is advised to organize skill enhancement workshops for faculty members in this field. Lastly, it is proposed that the individuals responsible for revising the promotion regulations include dedicated sections for specific disciplines like painting to ensure equitable competition and recognition within other research-oriented disciplines.